Skeptics

[Guest]

...If it matches no classified animal, it MUST therefore come from and UNclassified animal.

That's simple logic.

....

No, it's simple illogic. If a round peg doesn't fit in a square hole it doesn't make it a triangle. If it matches no classified animal, it must therefore not match a classified animal. It may however be contaminated. It may be degraded. It may be some other cause that does not allow for it to be classified completely or fully. Because it doesn't match a classified animal does not mean it matches an unclassified animal. That's not simple logic.

[Guest]

Please take no offense, red wolf!

Unless your a skeptic troll, here to pick fights and cause dissention.

Then by all means, every letter was meant for you.

Wow....where to begin. I suppose the most prudent thing to say is that you aren't a Mod or the forum police. Please leave the moderating to the Mods.

You are responding to a response Redwolf made towards a previous post of yours in which you basically said something similar.

You seem to have a really hostile tone towards those who hold a more skeptical stance than yourself. I would refer you to the following rules....

4.Remember at all times that this forum is here to discuss the subject of bigfoot, not to discuss other members. If you don't have something nice to say about someone, you might want to consider not saying anything.

5.Respect other members and their right to their opinion.

6.No name calling. Terms like liars and idiots are beyond the pale and will not be tolerated here.

8.All opinions are welcome regardless of which side of the proverbial fence you may reside in relation to the entire BF mystery.

Learn them and abide by them. If you can't then perhaps this forum isn't your cup of tea.

Enough of the name calling.

[Guest]

Me? A Troll? I think not.

I have been posting at the same sites and under the same name for many years. Over these years I have moved from being a die hard believer in BF, to a skeptical thinker on the subject. I actually reacted much like BCCryptid to skeptics back in my believer days, so I understand where he/she is coming from. That said, eliminating skeptics, or making them "move on" does nothing to bolster your argument for this creature and calling someone a troll because they disagree with your point of view is not helpful either.

I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of your post. You want to be treated in a civil manner by skeptics, but do not return the favor. Respect is a two way street.

[Guest BCCryptid]

Me? A Troll? I think not.

I have been posting at the same sites and under the same name for many years. Over these years I have moved from being a die hard believer in BF, to a skeptical thinker on the subject. I actually reacted much like BCCryptid to skeptics back in my believer days, so I understand where he/she is coming from. That said, eliminating skeptics, or making them "move on" does nothing to bolster your argument for this creature and calling someone a troll because they disagree with your point of view is not helpful either.

I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of your post. You want to be treated in a civil manner by skeptics, but do not return the favor. Respect is a two way street.

HOL-EEE Crap.

Where exactly did I call you a troll??? I said it wasn't intended for you, UNLESS you are a troll! Do you consider yourself a troll?

Back in my believer days?

I am not a believer, red wolf. I am currently leaning towards acceptance the mystery contains a real animal. Currently.

I accept there is hypocrisy in my post. There is inherent hypocrisy in much of this forum, like asking 'footers' to behave. By labeling people into a group, you immediately begin the process of ridicule and loss of respect. I was applying the same label to the other camp, to even things out.

Now that I have generated this reaction, the discussion should perhaps be on labels, not the tone of my post.

Yes, I agree. I have no problems with respectful, well spoken skeptics. Saskeptic leaps to mind.

What I have problems with, which I will loosely label 'skeptic trolls' are those who come here to troll for argument, pick fights, and laugh at those who think there is a real animal. I take GREAT exception to those 'people'. I am hoping that soon they will all be banned, permanently.

[Guest Blackdog]

What about believers who troll the forum looking to pick fights with skeptics? Should they be banned too or are they the good guys?

[Guest]

HOL-EEE Crap.

Where exactly did I call you a troll??? I said it wasn't intended for you, UNLESS you are a troll! Do you consider yourself a troll?

Back in my believer days?

I am not a believer, red wolf. I am currently leaning towards acceptance the mystery contains a real animal. Currently.

I accept there is hypocrisy in my post. There is inherent hypocrisy in much of this forum, like asking 'footers' to behave. By labeling people into a group, you immediately begin the process of ridicule and loss of respect. I was applying the same label to the other camp, to even things out.

Now that I have generated this reaction, the discussion should perhaps be on labels, not the tone of my post.

Yes, I agree. I have no problems with respectful, well spoken skeptics. Saskeptic leaps to mind.

What I have problems with, which I will loosely label 'skeptic trolls' are those who come here to troll for argument, pick fights, and laugh at those who think there is a real animal. I take GREAT exception to those 'people'. I am hoping that soon they will all be banned, permanently.

As far as I can tell, we haven't had any skeptic trolls posting on this new forum. If we do, we will certainly take care of them. Don't you worry about that.

BCCryptid, I think trolls and trolling are a couple of words you need to stay away from for a while.

Splash

[Guest]

Unless in the crytozoological section, am I right? Nothing? Didn't think so. I'm giving you guys gold here!

As far as having suggestions for the "skeptics" that really wasn't the goal of the OP. This thread is more about how those who are open to this animal's existence should be more critical, almost self policing, of evidence that is brought by us. We will be taken more seriously by all. Its also advice on not jumping to conclusions as that can hurt the whole field.

However I can say that as long as mutual respect is maintained I think we'll be okay. The only thing I might say to those who might not be open to the idea of this animal's existence is to read the posts a few times, take a deep breath, and try to see the other side. I guess really this whole thread could be advice for anyone. I just saw a lot of aggression against those who want more information. I think we all need to remember if someone saw a sasquatch, and they KNOW they did, I can see how they would be frustrated. The other side is I can understand how none of this makes sense to others. The thing we have to remember is that we have more similarities than differences. We shouldn't let a very few differences in how we approach an issue divide us.

Edited September 21, 2010 by Colossus

[southernyahoo]

Scenario: DNA sequence reveals enough information to label it primate, but does not reveal enough information to ID which species it is.

Result: Unkwown primate

Example:

DNA from spider monkey poop, that someone picked up and sent to a lab, might come back as the DNA of a primate, but the DNA is too degraded to make a species distinction.

You might say, 'well the sample I sent was found in the Rocky Mountains, so unknown primate means it is Bigfoot'

The lab does not get involved in the details of the collection of the sample, they are strictly determining the contents of the sample.

Someone commenting on your claim that it must be bigfoot, could say, 'unknown primate could include humans, or it could include a baggy of spider monkey crap that someone dumped out in the woods, so they could later say it is Bigfoot crap'.

Drew, your example here or hypothetical, does not account for the possibility that a complete sequence could be obtained and be "no match" to any known and be primate or great ape. It is possible, and of coarse, if the complete specifics of a test are not given, peoples imaginations take over, but believers in bigfoot are not the only guilty ones on this.

[Guest]

No, it's simple illogic. If a round peg doesn't fit in a square hole it doesn't make it a triangle. If it matches no classified animal, it must therefore not match a classified animal. It may however be contaminated.

Which any competent lab would make note of in the report.

It may be degraded.

See above.

It may be some other cause that does not allow for it to be classified completely or fully.

Which would also be noted in the report.

This is classic "skeptic 101" when the lab result is not to your liking, try to poke holes in it on the basis of presumptive incompetence.

Because it doesn't match a classified animal does not mean it matches an unclassified animal. That's not simple logic.

Yes it does.

"When all else is eliminated, whatever remains, however improbable, is most likely the truth..."

[Guest RayG]

Even if hair submitted for DNA analysis does come back as unknown primate, that doesn't automatically make it sasquatch hair. I suppose it's possible, but it's also possible the hair belongs to an already discovered primate that isn't included in that particular database, or it could be an existing species/genus of monkey that hasn't yet been officially discovered/identified/classified. Something like the Callicebus caquetensis, Rungwecebus kipunji, saguinus fuscicollis mura, Macaca munzala, or Nomascus annamensis, all of which had no DNA recorded in any database from as little as one month - 10 years ago.

New primates are still being discovered, but none that match the description of bigfoot.

RayG

[Guest]

If your genetic analysis is sufficient to say what something isn't, then it's sufficient to say what something is. You do that by plotting the sample on a cladogram (or other phylogenetic graphical representation) at its appropriate distance from the things you know it isn't. "Unknown primate" means that the sample has been identified to the order Primates, but cannot be any further distinguished. "Unknown hominin that is not Homo sapiens" means that we have our bigfoot. When some lab confirms that result we'll finally have what some people erroneously think we already do.

[Guest]

Even if hair submitted for DNA analysis does come back as unknown primate, that doesn't automatically make it sasquatch hair.

At the very least it makes it Unknown Primate hair, and if found in a place that supposedly HAS NO unknown primates, I would expect any real scientist to be all over that like a bad rash.

I suppose it's possible, but it's also possible the hair belongs to an already discovered primate that isn't included in that particular database,

More "presumption of incompetence". If their databases are that limited, that would be a noted factor in that report. And several of the more recent finds the presenter made it abudantly clear they went the "extra mile" and checked everything they could get their hands on.

or it could be an existing species/genus of monkey that hasn't yet been officially discovered/identified/classified. Something like the Callicebus caquetensis, Rungwecebus kipunji, saguinus fuscicollis mura, Macaca munzala, or Nomascus annamensis, all of which had no DNA recorded in any database from as little as one month - 10 years ago.

And how may of those are supposed to be running around where these samples were taken?

New primates[/url] are still being discovered, but none that match the description of bigfoot

1) yet.

2) see above

[Guest]

If your genetic analysis is sufficient to say what something isn't, then it's sufficient to say what something is. You do that by plotting the sample on a cladogram (or other phylogenetic graphical representation) at its appropriate distance from the things you know it isn't. "Unknown primate" means that the sample has been identified to the order Primates, but cannot be any further distinguished.

Except that it means that it doesn't match any known sample. That in and of itself is highly probative.

"Unknown hominin that is not Homo sapiens" means that we have our bigfoot. When some lab confirms that result we'll finally have what some people erroneously think we already do.

Or gorilla, or chimp, or organg either. You're not taking the whole of their statements, just the parts you can nitpick at with cheap debate slights of hand.

[Guest]

...

This is classic "skeptic 101" when the lab result is not to your liking, try to poke holes in it on the basis of presumptive incompetence.

Not having an answer, or the answer you "like" is not indicative of incompetence. I didn't say that. Your use of straw man arguments is prevalent.

Because it doesn't match a classified animal does not mean it matches an unclassified animal. That's not simple logic.

Yes it does.

"When all else is eliminated, whatever remains, however improbable, is most likely the truth..."

No it doesn't. If DNA does not match a classified animal it does not make it bigfoot DNA anymore than it makes it unicorn, a new gibbon, a new species of bird or squirrel or anything else. DNA that does not match a classified animal does not immediately become a match to something otherwise unknown. There are reasons for no match that don't equal bigfoot. I like your quote, but "most likely the truth" doesn't mean "the truth". If a round peg doesn't fit in a square hole it doesn't make it a triangle.

ETA to remove inappopriate name calling (yes, I caught it first )

Edited September 21, 2010 by Ace

[Will]

Scenario: DNA sequence reveals enough information to label it primate, but does not reveal enough information to ID which species it is.

Result: Unkwown primate

Example:

DNA from spider monkey poop, that someone picked up and sent to a lab, might come back as the DNA of a primate, but the DNA is too degraded to make a species distinction.

You might say, 'well the sample I sent was found in the Rocky Mountains, so unknown primate means it is Bigfoot'

The lab does not get involved in the details of the collection of the sample, they are strictly determining the contents of the sample.

Someone commenting on your claim that it must be bigfoot, could say, 'unknown primate could include humans, or it could include a baggy of spider monkey crap that someone dumped out in the woods, so they could later say it is Bigfoot crap'.

If it was a spider monkey would'nt it say that

To Hunsters comment would'nt and unkown primate still be an unknown primate.

A question for the scientists on here, If a pile of poop was dna tested and it came back as an unknown primate, what would that mean to you. Not saying its a bigfoot, but what else could it be. If it was someones pet monkey would it say what kind of monkey it is.